STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS REGAL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-21 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS REGAL MINOR ************ APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 06-K-5760-B HONORABLE ELLIS J. DAIGLE, JUDGE ************ SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE ************ Court composed of Marc T. Amy, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Hon. Earl B. Taylor District Attorney - 27th JDC P.O. Drawer 1968 Opelousas, LA 70571-1149 (337) 948-3041 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Regal Minor, #565979 - Pro Se Pine Prairie Correctional Center P.O. Box 650 Pine Prairie, LA 70576 Gremillion, Judge. On February 2, 2010, the Defendant, Regal Minor, pled guilty to the offense of manslaughter, a violation of La.R.S. 14:31. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to fourteen years at hard labor with credit for time served from the date of his arrest. The Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence on March 9, 2010, and it was denied. The Defendant did not appeal his sentence. On September 15, 2010, the Defendant filed a document in the trial court titled Motion to Quash with Motion to Ammend [sic] and/or to Modify Sentence. The trial court denied that post-conviction motion on December 9, 2010. The Defendant then, on December 15, 2010, filed a notice of intent to appeal the trial court s denial of the motion. The trial court granted an appeal on December 16, 2010. This court, on January 10, 2011, issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, as the judgment at issue is not appealable. The Defendant submitted no response. The judgment at issue is not appealable. See La.Code Crim.P . arts. 779 and 912.1. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant s appeal. However, the Defendant may seek supervisory writs from the trial court s ruling. The Defendant is neither required to file notice of intent to seek writs nor obtain an order from the trial court setting a return date, as is generally required by Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3. We construe the motion for appeal as timely-filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ. APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
